SHIKHA BANERJEE AND ORS. Vs. LAFARGE INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 23.11.2011 in B.S. Case No. 10 of 2002, the present writ petition has been filed. The original petitioner was employed with M/s. TISCO Limited however, in terms of circular dated 28.10.1999, his service was transferred to M/s. Lafarge India Limited on similar terms and conditions with continuity of service. The respondent asserted that the original petitioner availed benefits under VRS scheme by submitting application on 5.3.2002 which was accepted by the respondent on 1.4.2002. The original petitioner filed an application on which B.S. Case No. 10 of 2002 was instituted on the allegation that the original petitioner was pressurised to submit application under VRS scheme. It was pleaded that the application seeking VRS was not voluntary and the applicant was victimised by the respondent by dismissing him from service.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, about 10 years after B.C. Case No. 10 of 2002 was filed, the respondent filed an application on which a direction was issued for depositing an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/ - within 45 days. It is contended that instead of directing the original petitioner to deposit Rs. 9,00,000/ - at the fag end, the case itself should have been disposed of.

(3.) I find that it is not denied by the petitioners that the benefits till 22.4.2002 under VRS scheme was received by the original petitioner. The amount paid to the original petitioner was Rs. 9,30,000/ -. The respondent relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ramesh Chandra Sankla vs. Bikram Cement & Ors." : (2008) 14 SCC 58. Since the original petitioner disputed that he submitted application dated 5.3.2002 voluntarily, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has rightly directed the original petitioner to deposit the benefit received by him under VRS scheme. I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.